sticking together: the glue role and group … bonner okhuysen glue role 2009.pdfsticking together:...

STICKING TOGETHER: THE GLUE

ROLE AND GROUP CREATIVITY

Alexander R. Bolinger, Bryan L. Bonner

and Gerardo A. Okhuysen

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we introduce the concept of the ‘‘glue role’’ in groupsengaged in creative tasks. An individual crafts a glue role by seeking outand taking on otherwise neglected tasks that have the potential tofacilitate a creative group’s performance. We adopt a negotiated orderperspective on roles in groups to examine how a group’s emerging socialstructure provides opportunities for crafting the glue role. We thensuggest two mechanisms through which the glue role can facilitateperformance in creative groups: the coordination of group members’contributions and the management of group conflict.

In a pharmaceutical research and development group, a technical analyst offers to help

with an obscure statistical methodology that facilitates a breakthrough drug production

process. This individual works vigorously with the scientists to interpret and write up the

results, but is only mentioned in a small footnote when the group’s lead scientists pitch

the innovation to the company’s top management.

An academic committee has a member who customarily takes assiduous notes at each

meeting. At first, the other members of the committee think that this person is a little

obsessive. However, as the time comes for the committee to begin to put together its final

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

Creativity in Groups

Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Volume 12, 265–287

Copyright r 2009 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1534-0856/doi:10.1108/S1534-0856(2009)0000012013

265

report, the other members of the committee find themselves going to this note-taker for

specific details that they can use in their report that no one else can remember. The

committee successfully completes and delivers its report to institutional stakeholders.

Collaborative creativity in work groups is increasingly acknowledgedas a critical element to the success of organizations in a rapidly changingworld (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). However, the success of groups engaged increative endeavors hinges, in part, on their ability to manage the paradoxesand dilemmas that often accompany group interactions (Smith & Berg,1987). A situation that leads to a dilemma frequently associated withworking in creative groups is that group members may be selected primarilyfor their expertise in functional areas or for the specialized skills that theycan contribute to the group rather than their knowledge and skill in enactingteamwork (Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002). The creative group,then, is positioned on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, creativetask performance is thought to benefit from selecting talented groupmembers with a diverse set of skills and abilities (Milliken, Bartel, &Kurtzberg, 2003). On the other hand, even the most talented collection ofgroup members requires effective means of coordinating individualefforts to ensure that the group works together in pursuit of its goals(Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976). To the extent that group membersfocus on individual pursuits to the exclusion of teamwork, group membersmay encounter difficulties in working as an interdependent entity (Ellis, Bell,Ployhart, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen, 2005; Hollenbeck, DeRue, & Guzzo, 2004).

In this paper, we seek to identify and better understand the phenomenonof the glue role in small groups engaged in creative tasks. An individualenacts a glue role by seeking out and taking on otherwise neglected tasksthat have the potential to facilitate group effectiveness, but which often donot receive much recognition or attention. The glue role is contextuallydefined, driven by individuals’ ability to adapt their behaviors to meet theneeds of the group. Individuals are able to craft the glue role through theirongoing ability to recognize ‘‘windows of opportunity’’ (Tyre & Orlikowski,1994) for adopting otherwise neglected tasks with the potential to facilitatethe integration and coordination of group members’ efforts. We suggestthat this ability to take on neglected tasks that integrate group members’contributions can facilitate a creative group’s performance by enablingbetter group coordination and by cultivating intragroup relationships builton trust that can facilitate the management of group conflict.

We seek to contribute to theory and research on group creativity byexamining the glue role as a mechanism through which collective forms ofcreativity are accomplished in groups. We begin by introducing and defining

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

ALEXANDER R. BOLINGER ET AL.266

the concept of the glue role as an example of how individuals can enactspecific roles to influence group performance (Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick,2005). Drawing on the negotiated order of roles perspective (Bechky, 2006;Strauss, 1978), we then provide a theoretical account of how individualscraft the glue role in response to a group’s emerging social structures. Levineand Moreland (1990) point out how researchers know relatively little aboutthe ways in which individual roles form in groups and this paper beginsto examine that question. Finally, we discuss the ways in which the glue rolemay facilitate coordination and conflict management in groups.

GROUP CREATIVITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL

We define group creativity as a collective process whereby the diverse skills,knowledge, and perceptions of group members are coordinated to producea product or performance that is both novel and appropriate for its intendedpurposes. Our definition can be unpacked into two key components.First, we view group creativity as a collective process (Sawyer, 2003), whichrequires the coordination of members’ diverse abilities and perceptionsto facilitate group effectiveness (Taggar, 2002). We follow Hargadon andBechky (2006) in suggesting that much of a collective’s creative activityoccurs in the interactions of individuals with diverse perspectives andframes of reference. A creative group can enable individuals with diverseperspectives to come together and to interact, but it also requires means ofintegrating those efforts to be successful (Van de Ven et al., 1976). Second,we draw on Amabile’s (1996) definition of creativity as producing a productor performance that is both novel and appropriate to the purposes for whichit is intended.

Although researchers have pointed out that a good deal of creativeactivity is now accomplished in AU :1groups (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996;Sawyer, 2003), creativity is still popularly viewed largely as an individualphenomenon (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). Recognition for great innovationsoften accrues to individuals like Thomas Edison, even though ‘‘Edison [was]in reality a collective noun and refers to the work of many men’’ (Conot,1979, p. 469). This suggests that individuals who are able to take on visible,prominent group roles have the potential to receive individual recognitionfor some of the creative achievements of the group.

In the context of group creativity, individual group members’ desire forindividual recognition can play out in ways that have material consequencesfor group effectiveness. The desire of group members to seek visible,

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

Sticking Together: The Glue Role and Group Creativity 267

prominent group roles in which they will be personally recognized fortheir individual performance may conflict with their willingness to takeon whatever role is necessary to integrate and coordinate groupmembers’ efforts. Without individuals willing to take on a variety of rolesthat perform different functions, groups struggle to function optimally(Overbeck, Correll, & Park, 2005). Group members who are seekingto advance their careers may not view performing behind-the-scenes, low-visibility tasks that facilitate group coordination as being in their bestpersonal interests.

The failure of the heavily favored 2004 US men’s Olympic basketballteam to capture the gold medal represents a classic example of the perils ofnot having an individual able and willing to integrate the contributionsof others to facilitate the performance of the group. This team consisted ofsome of the best individual basketball talent in the world, including formerNational Basketball Association Most Valuable Players Tim Duncan andAllen Iverson and emerging stars like LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony.Unfortunately, team members were selected for their ability to shoot thebasketball and score points rather than their willingness to play defense orpass the ball to open teammates (Wise, 2004). The results were verydisappointing: in its first game, the heavily favored US team lost to PuertoRico by 22 points. Kerr said that in basketball, ‘‘scoring basketsy [is] morereadily observable than feeding [passing the ball to] open teammates’’(p. 780). However, without a team member willing to integrate individualcontributions to the group effort, the United States finished the tournamentin a stunning third place.

The willingness of individuals to integrate and coordinate the diversecontributions and perspectives of other group members is equally valuablein facilitating creativity in groups. Consider the example of ideationalcreativity in groups. A long line of research on brainstorming has soughtto understand why groups suffer process losses relative to a comparablenumber of individuals working alone in generating ideas (for reviews, seeDiehl & Stroebe, 1987; Litchfield, 2008; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991).Alex Osborn (1957), who first developed brainstorming as an intervention,suggested that the true value of generating ideas in groups comes fromopportunities to build on and integrate the ideas suggested by others.However, group members are often so focused on thinking up their ownideas while waiting to speak that they fail to listen to and build on theideas of others (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991). Without an individual who seeksopportunities to coordinate and build on the ideas of others, ideationalgroups are unlikely to realize their potential.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


In this paper, we suggest that the performance of creative groups can befacilitated by an individual in the glue role. An individual enacts a glue roleby seeking out and taking on coordinating tasks in the group that wouldotherwise be neglected. We begin by defining the glue role and distinguish-ing it from related constructs. We then examine how individuals craft andenact glue roles in creative groups. Finally, we discuss the potential effects ofan individual in the glue role on the performance of creative groups.

DEFINING THE GLUE ROLE

An individual enacts a glue role by seeking out and taking on tasks thatwould otherwise be neglected but which have the potential to facilitategroup effectiveness. Our definition of the glue role highlights two key points.On the one hand, the glue role is contextually defined. It is an adaptiveindividual behavior and reactive in the sense that arises in response to thespecific needs of the group. On the other hand, an individual enacts the gluerole by actively seeking out opportunities to coordinate the efforts of thegroup. This individual is likely to be especially sensitive to the coordinatingneeds of the group and attentive to gaps in the group’s process – neglectedtasks that, although not essential to group functioning, have the potentialto facilitate a creative group’s effectiveness through coordinating groupmembers’ contributions.

An individual in the glue role engages in behaviors that are valuable tocreative groups but which do not receive much attention or recognition.The need for an individual to adopt the glue role arises because creativetasks require group members to engage in a variety of activities, some ofwhich are more vivid – that is, visible and easily identifiable (Nisbett & Ross,1980) – than others. The most vivid behaviors in idea-generating groups,for example, involve coming up with novel, original ideas. As Sutton andHargadon (1996) observed in their in-depth study of product design firmIDEO, modified brainstorming (i.e., ‘‘deep dive’’) sessions serve as ‘‘statusauctions,’’ in which individuals who come up with creative ideas gain statusin the organization and prestige in the eyes of their colleagues. However,if group members focus exclusively on engaging in the vivid activity ofgenerating their own ideas and fail to build on the ideas of others, they missout on what Osborn (1957) believed to be the true value of working togetherin a group. Group members may fail to attend to the ideas of others,however, because building on the ideas of others is less vivid than gettingcredit for coming up with a creative idea. As a result, an individual willing to

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


build on and integrate the ideas of others can facilitate creativity inideational groups.

In defining the glue role, we also seek to delimit the boundaries of theconstruct and our discussion of it. The concept of the glue role draws on andincorporates elements from a number of conceptual traditions in the studyof behavior in groups. Although the glue role builds on other concepts,it describes a construct that captures a phenomenon that is distinct. We havealso chosen to discuss the glue role in terms of the interactive phases ofgroups in which creative work is being accomplished. Although weacknowledge that many creative groups are also responsible for implement-ing the ideas that they generate – and that an individual in the glue rolehas the potential for facilitating group performance outside of creativeinteractive phases – the current discussion is confined to examining the gluerole during the creative interaction phases of groups.

The glue role is related to concepts such as organizational citizenshipbehaviors (OCBs), which describe employee efforts that go beyond theboundaries of formal role requirements to help other group members incompleting their tasks (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988). Thebehaviors associated with the glue role are similar to some OCBs to theextent that both types of behavior help others in groups. However, the gluerole is distinct from OCBs in two ways. First, by definition, a role involvesengaging in integrating behaviors repeatedly over time. Different membersmight engage in helping behaviors that integrate the activities of the groupat different times, but an individual enacts the glue role only by taking onthe same ‘‘glue’’ activities repeatedly. Second, whereas OCBs can refer toany one-on-one helping behaviors which may or may not directly facilitatethe efforts of the group, the glue role consists of a more specific set of tasksthat enable the coordination and integration of the diverse contributions ofmultiple group members.

The glue role is also related to theories of leadership that emphasizethe influence of group members beyond the group’s formal leader.The constructs of shared (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007), emergent(Schneier & Goktepe, 1983), and functional (Adair, 1983) leadership allreflect dissatisfaction with traditional views of leadership as somethingthat inheres in a single individual with formal authority. They are similar tothe construct of the glue role in the sense that they seek to shift the focusaway from the characteristics and behaviors of a group’s formal leader tothe activities of other members of the group. However, the activities of anindividual in the glue role transcend leadership because an individual canfacilitate group creativity without engaging in attempts to influence the

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


motives or actions (Yukl, 1989) of others. An individual in the glue rolecoordinates and integrates the efforts of others, but these activities may notnecessarily be the best route toward exerting influence over others.

Finally, the glue role is related to but distinct from the construct of socialroles (Eagly, 1987; Slater, 1955). According to Bales (1970), social rolesinvolve behaviors focused specifically on maintaining the cohesion andsolidarity of a group. A social role is distinct from a task role in that thebehaviors an individual in a social role engages do not contribute directlyto completing the group’s task. Examples of social role behaviors mightinclude verbally encouraging others, stepping in to mediate interpersonalconflicts, and otherwise seeking to help satisfy the emotional needs of othergroup members (Gladstein, 1984). As we will later argue, a glue role mayhave many of the same effects as a social role in that the willingness of anindividual to adopt a glue role may enable intragroup trust (Jones &George, 1998) that facilitates conflict management. However, an individualin a glue role facilitates these effects through engaging in activities thatdirectly contribute toward accomplishing the group’s task. As a result, anindividual who crafts a glue role engages in activities consistent with a taskrole, yet these activities may have many of the same effects that researchershave theorized should result from the adoption of social roles.

HOW INDIVIDUALS CRAFT AND

ENACT THE GLUE ROLE

So far we have defined the glue role, provided examples of how it manifestsin the context of creative groups, and described its relationship to relatedconstructs. In this section, we draw on the negotiated order perspective(Strauss, 1978) as a means of better understanding how the glue role iscrafted and enacted by individuals in creative groups. The negotiated orderperspective on roles suggests that roles are negotiated in and throughinteraction and in relation to the constraining and enabling effects of socialstructures (Bechky, 2006). The negotiated order perspective draws ourattention to the ways in which individual activities are constrained(and enabled) by social structures such as small groups.

The negotiated order perspective has often been applied in the context oforganizations with hierarchical structures and relatively rigid role definitions(Stelling & Bucher, 1972), but our interest in group creativity brings thenegotiated order perspective into a more emergent structural environment.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


Groups engaged in creative tasks frequently operate in an emergent socialcontext characterized by a dynamic structure created in and through ongoinginteraction (Sawyer, 2003). The negotiated order perspective of roles providesa mechanism for accounting for the ways in which the structure of a collectiveis constrained and enabled as well as reenacted (reproduced and altered) inand through these interactions (Bechky, 2006; Strauss, 1978).

From a negotiated order perspective, individual agency and emergentsocial structure are mutual influences in the development of roles in groups.We view the construction of roles as neither a function of the person or thesituation alone, because individuals are neither completely autonomous intheir ability to construct roles in groups nor completely constrained bythe social structures they encounter. Instead, our purpose is to theorize howindividuals seek out and craft roles in the windows of opportunity enabled bythe emerging structure of the groups in which they participate. In this section,we will provide two examples of how a creative group’s emerging socialstructure can constrain individual activity while simultaneously providingwindows of opportunity for an individual to take on the glue role. In our firstexample, the social structure that emerges is a function of the configuration ofgroup members’ personalities. In our second example, the social structure isa function of the emerging interdependence of the creative task.

Group Composition

The composition of a group is one element of an emerging social structurethat might constrain the agency of individuals in crafting roles in creativegroups. One element of group composition is the configuration of personali-ties in a group, which is likely to influence a group’s emerging structurethrough its influence on social and interaction dynamics (Moynihan &Peterson, 2001). For example, Barry and Stewart (1997) conduct an experi-mental study of self-managed groups engaged in an open-ended, creativeproblem-solving task to examine the influence of the configuration of groupmembers’ personalities on group performance. They found a curvilinear effectin relation to extroversion. Groups with a moderate number of extrovertsperformed best, whereas group performance tended to suffer in groups with ahigh proportion of extroverts. According to the authors, a lack of task focuswas the underlying mechanism driving the poor performance of groups with ahigh proportion of extroverts. Perhaps, those groups lost sight of the task athand as group members focused on saying their ideas out loud and neglectedto integrate and build on the ideas that had already been suggested.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


In Barry and Stewart’s study, there were no rules dictating that everygroup member needed to speak their ideas, nor was a reward structurein place that would reward individual contributions to solving the problem.The social and interactional dynamics that ultimately hindered groupcreativity emerged from the configuration of group members’ personalities.Furthermore, the high proportion of extroverts in this example constrainedthe development of certain roles. There would be little use in a group witha high proportion of extroverts for yet another group member who wouldtry to dominate the conversation.

However, this emerging context would also provide a window ofopportunity for an individual to contribute to group effectiveness throughadopting a complementary glue role (Muchinsky &Monahan, 1987). In groupswith a high proportion of extroverts, many members are eager to contributeideas, but there may be no one to listen to and integrate the ideas beingsuggested. Such situations create a window of opportunity for an individualwho is sensitive to the integrating needs of the group to assume a glue role.

What are the characteristics of individuals who choose to seek out andenact otherwise neglected coordinating and integrating tasks rather thanengaging in other, more vivid behaviors? Put another way, what leadssome group members to focus on the integration and coordination needsof the collective rather than behaviors that would seem to benefit themas individuals? A full account of the possible attributes characterizingindividuals in the glue role is beyond the scope of this project; however, wesuggest that individuals who enact the glue role can be driven by a desire tofacilitate both collective and individual outcomes. Consider an individualwho takes on a glue role in an idea-generating group. This individual’sintegrating activities, which are intended to facilitate group effectiveness,may appear to some as an exercise in irrational self-denial – taking one forthe team, as it were. However, if the organization’s compensation is at leastpartially based on group outcomes, the individual in the glue role alsostands to benefit personally from the group’s success. We will return to theissue later in discussing the implications of compensation systems on thepotential for ‘‘glue’’ activity in groups.

Task Interdependence

In addition to group composition, the structure of a creative group’s taskcan also influence its emergent social structure. One facet of task structure islevel of interdependence, the degree to which the task requires that multiple

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


individuals work together (Wageman, 2001). Interdependence has oftenbeen conceptualized as a property of the group’s task, a structure that isimposed on the group by management or other external forces (Thompson,1967). However, work by Wageman and Gordon (2005) suggests thatinterdependence can also emerge as a function of group members’ valuesand preferences. The latter view of interdependence is especially valuableto understanding the dynamic nature of many creative groups, in whichstructure emerges as group members interact over time (Sawyer, 2003).

Academic research groups are an example of creative groups in whichgroup members’ preferences may dictate the interdependence of the task.Suppose that a group of four researchers decide to work together on aresearch project. The task could be completed in different ways with varyinglevels of interdependence. The group could choose to structure the task with ahigh degree of interdependence by having all four participants meet togethereach day and sit around the computer to write the paper together. Alternately,the group could choose to structure the task by dividing the paper into foursections, having each group member write one section of the paper, and thenmeeting to combine the sections into a single paper at a later time. A thirdmethod for structuring the task would be to have the lead author write a firstdraft and then circulate that draft to each of the other three group members,who take turns providing their comments and feedback.

The integrating behaviors associated with the glue role may lookdifferent, depending on the degree of interdependence embedded in theacademic research group’s task structure. In the most highly interdependenttask structure, where all four members sit down at the computer each day tojointly compose the paper, the glue role may be adopted by the individualwho interprets and paraphrases other members’ ideas and who assures thatevery person’s views are heard. If the group opts to divide the paper intosections and then combine each individual’s section into a final paper ata later time, an individual may take on the glue role by taking the time towrite transition paragraphs between sections that improve the paper’sflow to make it sound like it was written by one person instead of four.If the group chooses to have the lead author write a draft of the paper andthen circulate the draft to each of the other group members for comments,an individual may take on a glue role by clarifying the issues underlyingdifferences in opinion and making suggestions about how conflictingsuggestions for revising the paper can be reconciled. In each case,individuals who take on the glue role adapt their behaviors to the specificneeds of the group that flow from the degree of task interdependence andemerges from the preferences of a creative group’s members.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


Negotiating Other Group Members’ Perceptions

As the metaphor of a negotiated order implies, an individual not only acts tocraft the glue role in relation to an emerging social context, but also inrelation to other group members who are actively perceiving and reactingto the activities of that individual. From a negotiated order perspective,group members’ perceptions of the actions of an individual in the glue roleare embedded in broader macrosocial norms and assumptions about whatmotives govern others’ behavior (Svensson, 1996). Self-interest, for example,is widely viewed as a cardinal motive for human behavior (Miller, 1999;Schwartz, 1986). By engaging in behaviors that enable the coordination ofa creative group at the expense of behaviors that might facilitate recognitionof individual achievement, an individual in a glue role might appear toothers to be acting for reasons other than self-interest. Drawing on work bySaparito, Chen, and Sapienza (2004), we suggest that the ways in whichindividuals in the glue role represent their motives to other group membershave implications for the negotiation of the glue role and the developmentof trust.

Saparito and his colleagues suggest that self-interest is often the defaultmotive attributed to other parties. This assumption of self-interest arises bothfrom macrosocial, collectively shared cultural ideologies (Miller & Ratner,1996), and from more local contextual assumptions, such as expectations thatbusiness relationships are instrumental and both parties will act in theirrational self-interest (Petersen & Rajan, 1994). The macrosocial norm of self-interest is supported in creative groups by the widespread view of creativityas an individual phenomenon (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003) and reinforcedby selection practices that emphasize specialized skills and knowledge ratherthan group members’ ability to work well together (Marks et al., 2002).However, it should also be noted that group members’ perceptions of taskinterdependence – which typically follow more interdependent structuralarrangements (Wageman, 2001) – should moderate the degree of self-interestin the group. Specifically, groups whose members perceive their tasks as moreinterdependent may have weaker norms of self-interest, at least within thecontext of that group.

When called to account for their behaviors in the course of ongoinginteractions with other group members, individuals enacting the glue rolemay gain credibility by framing their motives in terms that are congruentwith the macrosocial norm of self-interest. For example, an individualtaking assiduous notes in committee meetings may frame his actions interms of having a poor memory and needing to take careful notes to

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


remember what was said for his portion of the committee’s final report.By representing their actions in terms consistent with the norm of self-interest, individuals in the glue role provide an account that is likely to becongruent with other group members’ expectations of what motivatesrational behavior. This perceived congruence is likely to facilitate initialtrust that, over time, may develop into a deeper level of trust built on a senseof common fate and shared values (Jones & George, 1998; Lewicki &Bunker, 1996).

The negotiated order perspective on the development of roles offersinsight into the dynamic interplay between the structural context of a socialsetting and the individual’s ability to seek out, craft, and enact a glue role ina creative group. It provides a framework for a more balanced examinationof the mutual influence of individual agency and emergent social structureon one another as well as a mechanism for linking the negotiation ofindividual behaviors to broader macrosocial norms. We have presented anaccount of the glue role in creative groups as a situated phenomenon,negotiated in relation to a particular emergent social structure, responsive toother group members’ perceptions, and embedded in macrosocial normsand assumptions. In the next section, we consider how an individual’swillingness to enact a glue role may facilitate creative group effectiveness.

THE EFFECTS OF THE GLUE ROLE

So far, we have defined the glue role, provided examples of its manifestationin a variety of creative group contexts, and discussed its relationship torelated constructs. We have also examined how individuals seek out andcraft glue roles by capitalizing on windows of opportunity that are enabledby the social structures that emerge in creative groups over time. We willnow articulate and discuss potential mechanisms through which thewillingness and ability of an individual to seek out and enact the gluerole can facilitate the effectiveness of groups engaged in creative tasks.We suggest that the glue role is likely to facilitate group effectivenessthrough its influence on coordination and conflict management.

The Glue Role and Coordination

Coordination in work groups involves aligning and integrating the activitiesand objectives of group members toward a common collective goal

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


(Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000). Coordination is viewed as a criticalprocess in facilitating group success, particularly the success of groupsengaged in creative tasks (Brophy, 1998). Without adequate coordination, agroup risks process losses (Steiner, 1972) that waste group members’ effortsand other resources while jeopardizing the group’s ability to meet its goals.Researchers have suggested that coordination can occur in groups throughexplicit coordination, in the form of intentional planning and programming(March & Simon, 1958), or through interpersonal communication (Van deVen et al., 1976). Recently, researchers have pointed out that much of thecoordination that occurs in groups is implicit, whereby group membersadjust their behavior in relation to the behaviors of others in the groupwithout formally communicating or planning in advance (Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008). Shared mental models (Klimoski &Mohammed, 1994), trust (Jones & George, 1998), habitual routines(Gersick & Hackman, 1990), and teamwork knowledge (Marks et al.,2002) are just a few of the proposed mechanisms through which groupmembers are thought to implicitly coordinate their efforts.

The centrality of coordination to the effectiveness of creative groups isespecially visible in idea-generating groups. Researchers have consistentlyfound that face-to-face groups working together typically generate fewerideas than nominal groups, in which individuals generate ideas on their ownand later combine them (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; McGrath, 1984; Taylor,Berry, & Block, 1958; Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1971). That AU :2is, brainstorminggroups that interact with one another perform at a deficit relative to thosethat do not. Diehl and Stroebe (1991) suggest that a primary source ofprocess losses in ideational groups results from deficits in coordination.Specifically, Diehl and Stroebe identify production blocking, wherebygroup members are so focused on trying to generate their own ideas whilewaiting for their turn to speak that they miss out on opportunities to buildon existing ideas suggested by other group members. To the extent thatgroups can coordinate the diverse contributions of multiple members tobuild on suggested ideas rather than generating each new idea from scratch,they should be able to generate a higher quantity and quality of ideas andengage in a more efficient process.

Although it could be useful for a group engaged in a creative task tocoordinate its efforts through distributed mechanisms like generic groupmember teamwork skills (Ellis et al., 2005), the reality is that these formsof coordination may not always work well for creative groups. As a result,members of these types of groups are often selected primarily for theirspecialized knowledge and abilities rather than for their skill at working well

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


in a group (Marks et al., 2002). The result is that members may be verygood at what they do individually but, absent some other mechanism forcoordinating each member’s individual inputs, the group’s performance as acollective suffers (Hollenbeck et al., 2004).

An alternative possibility for integrating creative group members’ effortsis illustrated by the notion of coordination through roles (Bechky, 2006).A role is a set of behaviors that characterize a particular group member in aparticular setting in relation to the activities of other group members(Biddle, 1979; Katz & Kahn, 1978). An individual who seeks out and enactsa glue role may facilitate group effectiveness by sensing what group-orientedcoordinating tasks are being neglected and taking them on. This individualcan become a focus point for coordinating the efforts of other groupmembers, allowing other members to do what they do best. The technicalanalyst who helps the lead scientists in a research and development group byproviding interpretation and support of an obscure statistical process freesthe lead scientists to focus on their presentation to top management. The‘‘assiduous note taker’’ enables the other members of the committee to focuson contributing ideas and debating issues. In both cases, the other membersof the group have greater freedom to focus on their own contributionsbecause the individual in the glue role repeatedly engages in integratingbehaviors. Over time, group members come to recognize that the individualhas adopted the glue role through consistently taking on tasks thatcoordinate their efforts and facilitate the group’s performance. As othergroup members recognize the coordinating activities of the individual in theglue role over time, this results in the development of trust that facilitatesgroup effectiveness.

Proposition 1. Individuals facilitate coordination in creative groups byenacting the glue role.

Proposition 2. The coordinating behaviors of individuals in the glue rolefacilitate the effectiveness of creative groups.

The Glue Role and Conflict Management

In addition to facilitating creative group performance through thecoordination of diverse group members’ efforts, an individual in the gluerole can also facilitate group creativity through conflict management.Effective conflict management works parallel to coordination in that it has

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


the potential to remove barriers to the integration of group members’efforts. In this section, we follow the distinction in the literaturebetween conflict that is task based and relationship based (Guetzkow &Gyr, 1954; Pinkley, 1990; Jehn, 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001) and discusshow an individual in the glue role can facilitate conflict management thatencourages a moderate level of task conflict but prevents task conflict fromdegenerating into relationship conflict.

Task conflict refers to differing viewpoints, ideas, and opinions related tothe group’s task, whereas relationship conflict refers to disagreementsover interpersonal issues and other concerns not directly related to the task(Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Moderate levels of task conflicthave been found to benefit group performance by encouraging discus-sion and debate that enables a better understanding of the issues at hand(Fiol, 1994; Janssen, Van de Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999) and provide groupmembers the opportunity to voice their ideas and perspectives (Amason,1996; Peterson, 1997). Relationship conflict, on the other hand, has beenconsistently associated with negative group outcomes (Gladstein, 1984;Jehn & Bendersky, 2003) that are driven, in part, by less information sharingand perceptions that other group members are not supportive (Shalley,Zhou, & Oldham, 2004).

Creative groups walk a tightrope in managing conflict. On the one hand,some degree of task conflict is likely to benefit group creativity because itencourages a more robust debate that involves hearing minority viewpointsand ideas, which should ultimately lead to better idea generation and morecreative solutions (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003; Nemeth, Personnaz,Personnaz, & Goncalo, 2004). On the other hand, high levels of task conflictcan easily turn into relationship conflict, which has the potential to reduceinformation sharing and limit group members’ cognitive functioning (Jehn &Mannix, 2001).

We suggest that an individual in the glue role can enable group creativityby (1) encouraging a moderate level of task conflict and (2) facilitatingconflict management that prevents task conflict from escalating intorelationship conflict. First, an individual in the glue role may engage inbehaviors that encourage and integrate the contributions of every groupmember, including those whose voices may not otherwise be heard. Groupmembers whose points of view are very different from the perspectives ofthe rest of the group can be valuable to creative groups by encouragingfurther discussion (Fiol, 1994) and by introducing unique frames ofreference that spark creative insights for recombining existing ideas ina new way (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). However, groups may fail to utilize

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


the contributions of some group members by discounting certain members’expertise based on social role expectations (Thomas-Hunt & Phillips, 2004)or by over weighting the contributions of individuals who are extroverted(Bonner, 2000) or whose ideas are more consistent with the majorityof group members’ perspectives (Bonner, Gonzalez, & Sommer, 2004). Anindividual in the glue role can ensure that potentially marginalized ideasare heard by reminding group members that they have not heard fromcertain individuals for a while. An individual in the glue role can then returnto minority ideas, paraphrase them, and link them in a way that interfaceswith the group’s discussion. For example, in an architectural design groupcharged with designing an environmentally sustainable housing complex, anindividual in the glue role might say, ‘‘I remember that Tony said somethingabout designing low-wattage light fixtures in his last job. Tony, do you mindtelling us more about what you did before?’’

Proposition 3. Individuals in the glue role facilitate group creativity byenabling the group to incorporate and capitalize on the diverseperspectives of multiple group members.

Second, an individual in a glue role can facilitate conflict managementthat prevents task conflict from evolving into relationship conflict throughthe development of intragroup trust. Managers are seeking ways to promotetrust as a means for facilitating collective performance (Kramer & Tyler,1996) and trust is especially important in groups that ask their members totake creative risks to come up with innovative solutions (Edmondson, 1999).The ability of an individual in the glue role to foster trust is valuableto conflict management because researchers have found that intragrouptrust moderates the relationship between task and relationship conflict bypreventing task conflict from turning into relationship conflict (Peterson &Behfar, 2003; Simons & Peterson, 2000).

Trust is negotiated in and through ongoing interactions among groupmembers (Jones & George, 1998) and develops over time when individualsdemonstrate consistent, trustworthy behaviors (Kelley, 1967). By consis-tently taking on tasks that integrate group members’ efforts, an individualin the glue role demonstrates a commitment to facilitating the goals of thegroup. This demonstration of commitment to the group objective has thepotential to foster broader intragroup trust over time that enables groupmembers to give one another the benefit of the doubt in conflict situations(Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Simons and Peterson (2000) findthat task conflict can evolve into relationship conflict through a processof misattribution, whereby individuals make antagonistic or sinister

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


attributions for other group members’ behavior. The presence ofintragroup trust can prevent task conflict from escalating into relationshipconflict by increasing the likelihood that group members will attributeconflict to a simple misunderstanding (Jehn & Mannix, 2001) or to othergroup members’ sincere desire to push for a more creative product orperformance. By taking the initiative to act consistently in terms of group-focused objectives, individuals in the glue role can enable trust built onshared values and interests (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) that facilitates groupconflict management.

Proposition 4. Individuals in the glue role should enable conflictmanagement through the facilitation of intragroup trust.

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Creative groups have the potential to benefit from the unique insights andcontributions of specialists with different skills and expertise. As research-ers, we still have much to learn about how creative groups can effectivelyintegrate specialists’ diverse efforts into a single creative performance orproduct. Understanding how specialist contributions are integrated isespecially difficult in cognitive tasks in which there is little visible evidenceof the coordination of diverse efforts. In examining the glue role, we hope toshed light on a mechanism through which diverse efforts are integrated increative groups.

In this paper, we offer three primary contributions to research on groupcreativity. First, we introduce and define the concept of the glue role asan example of how individuals can enact specific roles to influence groupperformance (Stewart et al., 2005). This addresses a call that researchersmore carefully consider how individuals impact group effectiveness throughcharacteristic behaviors and the adoption of roles (Levine & Moreland,1990).

Second, this research applies the negotiated order perspective on rolesto examine how individuals can craft and enact specific roles in creativegroups, embedded in dynamic social contexts, whose task structures areemergent rather than externally imposed. This perspective provides anaccount of the interplay between a group’s emerging social structure inconjunction with the activities of individual group members. The negotiatedorder perspective also offers a process-based account of individual role

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


crafting as a situated and negotiated phenomenon in the context ofcreative groups.

Finally, this project suggests a different approach to facilitating theeffectiveness of creative groups, of which ideational groups are an example.Beginning with Osborn (1957), researchers have examined brainstorming asan intervention for reducing process losses and enabling productivity gainsin idea-generating groups. Brainstorming is an example of a group-level,instructions-based intervention – that is, every member of the group receivesthe same written and verbal instructions. The glue role, however, suggests apossible intervention that is different in kind from brainstorming. Managerscould assign an individual to the glue role in an idea-generating groupby instructing only that individual to seek out opportunities to build on andintegrate the ideas of others. Such individuals would not be responsible forcoming up with new ideas from scratch; rather, they would be evaluatedonly on the degree to which they facilitated the group’s ability to integratethe contributions of multiple members by building on the ideas of others.

Examining the glue role as an individual-level, role-based intervention forfacilitating group creativity is an important direction for future research thatwould enable researchers to examine the nature and properties of the gluerole in a more concrete way. Experimentally assigning individuals to theglue role in both lab and field studies should enable researchers to explorethe potential efficacy of the glue role as an intervention for creative groups.It would also provide further insight into the degree to which potentialmoderating variables, such as individual differences in characteristics, mayaffect the effectiveness of an individual in the glue role. Ideally, this researchwould initially be grounded in a specific creative context, such as ideationalgroups, and then expanded to examine other types of creative groups.

Research on the glue role may also offer insights into strategies forcompensation practices that facilitate the performance of creative groups.Although organizations often pay lip service to the importance of teamworkin groups, they frequently compensate individual performance usingmetrics that only end up measuring individual performance (Fletcher,1999). Wageman (1995) found that this type of compensation system –offering independent (i.e., individually-based) rewards to groups engagedstructurally interdependent tasks – undermines teamwork and diminishesgroup effectiveness. Even more damaging, a compensation system that onlyrewards individuals who engage in behaviors more vivid than integratingand coordinating the contributions of group members may discourageindividuals from taking on the glue role. To the extent that an individual inthe glue role can facilitate group creativity, poorly designed compensation

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


systems that discourage ‘‘glue’’ behaviors may create yet another barrier tocreative group effectiveness.

Finally, future research should also examine the extent to which thebenefits associated with the glue role may extend beyond the context ofcreative groups. In fact, we would suggest that an individual in the glue rolecan emerge and potentially benefit almost any group in which (a) groupmembers are selected primarily for their skills and expertise; (b) coordinat-ing and integrating activities have the potential to facilitate groupeffectiveness; and (c) certain activities and behaviors in the group are morevivid and likely to be rewarded than others, leading to the neglect of other,less vivid activities. As Kerr (1975) argued, many groups and organizationsin contexts ranging from business to the military, to sports, and to politics,fail to perform to their potential because members attend to vivid,individual activities and fail to attend to activities that would integrate thecontributions of others and enable the group to work well together.

It is our sincere desire that this line of research will encourage furtherexamination of how individuals adopt roles in creative groups and howthose roles can influence group creativity. Researchers know a good dealabout both the formal and informal roles of leadership, but relatively littleabout the enactment of other roles in small groups (Levine & Moreland,1990). We hope that this project will facilitate further inquiry into theindividual activities that can influence group creativity.

UNCITED REFERENCE

Sundstrom (1999).

REFERENCES

Adair, J. (1983). Effective leadership. Aldershot, England: Gower.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on

strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems:

Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston.

Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed

groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship

between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.

Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary

organizations. Organization Science, 17, 3–21.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic

Press.

Bonner, B. L., Gonzalez, C., & Sommer, D. (2004). Centrality and accuracy in group quantity

estimation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 155–165.

Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem-

solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 199–229.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An

investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 50, 1217–1234.

Conot, R. (1979). A streak of luck. New York: Seaview Books.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the

solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.

Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down

the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

Ellis, A. P. J., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An

evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive

and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 641–672.

Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 5,

403–420.

Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, R. J. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.

Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human

Relations, 7, 367–381.

Hargadon, A. H., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative

collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484–500.

Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S., & Guzzo, R. (2004). Bridging the gap between I/O research

and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design.

Human Resource Management, 43, 353–366.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape

the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25,

117–142.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup

conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational

groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency

perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior,

25, 187–242.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study

of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

238–251.

Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications

for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–546.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:

Wiley.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In: D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska

symposium on motivation (pp. 192–238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management

Journal, 18, 769–783.

Klimoski, R. J., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor. Journal

of Management, 20, 403–437.

Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of

Psychology, 41, 585–634.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.

In: R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and

research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of

Management Review, 33, 649–668.

March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training

on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1–8.

Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. (1996). The power of the myth of self-interest. In: L. Montada &

M. J. Lerner (Eds), Current societal issues about justice (pp. 25–48). New York: Putnam.

Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work

groups. In: P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds), Group creativity: Innovation through

collaboration (pp. 32–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to under-

standing the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 23, 327–378.

Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence?

Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,

268–277.

Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-

analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.

Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits

of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In: P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds), Group

creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of

conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social


Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Assigning weights to data: The ‘‘vividness criterion’’. In:

R. E. Nisbett & L. Ross (Eds), Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social

judgment (pp. 42–62). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior – The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.

Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (1st ed.). New York: Scribner’s.

Overbeck, J. R., Correll, J. C., & Park, B. (2005). The internal sorting process of group status:

The problem of too many stars. In: M. Thomas-Hunt, E. Mannix & M. A. Neale (Eds),

Research on managing groups & teams (Vol. 7, pp. 169–199). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier

Press.

Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Petersen, M. A., & Rajan, R. G. (1994). The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from

small business data. Journal of Finance, 49, 3–37.

Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue

and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72, 1107–1121.

Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationship between performance

feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 99, 143–160.

Rico, R., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination

processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33,

163–184.

Saparito, P. A., Chen, C. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (2004). The role of relational trust in bank-small

firm relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 400–410.

Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schneier, C. E., & Goktepe, J. R. (1983). Issues in emergent leadership: The contingency

model of leadership, leader sex, and leader behavior. In: H. H. Blumberg, A. P. Hare,

V. Kent & M. F. Davies (Eds), Small groups and social interaction. Chichester, UK:

Wiley.

Schwartz, B. (1986). The battle for human nature. New York: Norton.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual

characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 6,

230–245.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top

management teams: The pivotal roles of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85, 102–111.

Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small groups. American Sociological Review, 20,

300–310.

Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis,

and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Stelling, J., & Bucher, R. (1972). Autonomy and monitoring on hospital wards. Sociological

Quarterly, 13, 431–446.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as

a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel


Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sundstrom, E. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for

fostering high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. H. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a

product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.

Svensson, R. (1996). The interplay between doctors and nurses – A negotiated order

perspective. Sociology of Health and Illness, 18, 379–398.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources:

A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–331.

Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using

brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3,

23–47.

Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: Expertise

and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,

1585–1598.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of

technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 98–118.

Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, L. A., & Koenig, R. J. (1976). Determinants of coordination

modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40, 145–180.

Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In: M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work:

Theory and research (pp. 197–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. M. (2005). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent

task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16, 687–700.

Wise, M. (2004). We got no game: Poor fundamentals cost Americans a shot at the gold.

Washington Post, page A1.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of

interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9,

141–159.

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39


1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Book: RMGT-V012

Chapter: 10

Please e-mail or fax your responses

and any corrections to:

E-mail:

Fax:

Dear Author,

During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, some questions may have arisen.

These are listed below. Please check your typeset proof carefully and mark any corrections in

the margin of the proof or compile them as a separate list.

Disk use

Sometimes we are unable to process the electronic file of your article and/or artwork. If this is

the case, we have proceeded by:

& Scanning (parts of) your article & Rekeying (parts of) your article

& Scanning the artwork

Bibliography

If discrepancies were noted between the literature list and the text references, the following may

apply:

& The references listed below were noted in the text but appear to be missing from

your literature list. Please complete the list or remove the references from the text.

& UNCITED REFERENCES: This section comprises references that occur in the

reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text or

delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section.

Queries and/or remarks

Location in

Article

Query / remark Response

AU:1 Reference citation Hargadon

and Sutton (1996) has been

changed to Sutton and Hargadon

(1996) as per the list. Please

check.

AU:2 The following reference citations

have not been included in the list:

Van de Ven and Delbecq (1971);

Pinkley (1990); Bonner (2000).

Please check.

sticking together: the glue role and group … bonner okhuysen glue role 2009.pdfsticking together:...

Documents